[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3426.] 

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 

an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested 

to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 

65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 

other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 

made before the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-3426

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HUBBELL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hubbell, Slip Opinion 

No. 2015-Ohio-3426.] 

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Soliciting sexual activity with a client—Six-month 

suspension, stayed on the condition that respondent commit no further 

misconduct. 

(No. 2015-0592—Submitted May 6, 2015—Decided August 27, 2015.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court, No. 2014-099. 

_______________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Respondent, Bradley Francis Hubbell of Toledo, Ohio, Attorney 

Registration No. 0075674, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 2002. 

On November 26, 2014, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint alleging 

that Hubbell had attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with a client he was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

representing pro bono in a custody dispute. Relator charged Hubbell with 

violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and 8.4(h). 

{¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Professional Conduct considered the cause 

on the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement. See Gov.Bar R. V(16). 

{¶ 3} In the consent-to-discipline agreement, Hubbell stipulates to the 

facts alleged in relator’s complaint and agrees that his conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) (prohibiting a lawyer from soliciting or engaging in sexual 

activity with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them 

prior to the initiation of the client-lawyer relationship). The parties agree to the 

dismissal of the alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) (prohibiting a lawyer 

from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to 

practice law). 

{¶ 4} The parties agree that the applicable mitigating factors include the 

absence of a prior disciplinary record, Hubbell’s cooperative attitude toward the 

disciplinary proceedings and acceptance of responsibility for his misconduct, and 

his good character and reputation. See Gov.Bar R. V(13)(C)(1), (4), and (5). The 

parties stipulate that the fact that this matter involved a vulnerable client is an 

aggravating factor. Based upon Hubbell’s stipulated misconduct and these 

factors, the parties stipulate that the appropriate sanction is a six-month 

suspension from the practice of law, with the entire suspension stayed on the 

condition that Hubbell commit no further misconduct. 

{¶ 5} The panel and the board found that the consent-to-discipline 

agreement conforms to Gov.Bar R. V(16) and recommend that we adopt the 

agreement in its entirety. The panel considered several disciplinary cases, 

including Toledo Bar Assn. v. Burkholder, 109 Ohio St.3d 443, 2006-Ohio-2817, 

848 N.E.2d 840 (imposing a stayed six-month suspension on an attorney who 

made improper sexual advances toward a client) and Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Hines, 133 Ohio St.3d 166, 2012-Ohio-3929, 977 N.E.2d 575 (imposing a stayed 
January Term, 2015 

3

six-month suspension on an attorney who engaged in an inappropriate sexual 

relationship with a client). 

{¶ 6} We agree that Hubbell violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(j) and, as stated in 

the parties’ agreement and as indicated by the cited precedent, that this conduct 

warrants a stayed six-month suspension from the practice of law. Therefore, we 

adopt the parties’ consent-to-discipline agreement and dismiss the alleged 

violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 

{¶ 7} Accordingly, Bradley Francis Hubbell is hereby suspended from the 

practice of law for a period of six months, with the entire suspension stayed on the 

condition that Hubbell commit no further misconduct. If Hubbell fails to comply 

with the condition of the stay, the stay will be lifted, and Hubbell will serve the 

entire six-month suspension. Costs are taxed to Hubbell. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Jonathan B. Cherry, for respondent. 

______________________